Substantive revisions

Bill, I am quite familiar with the Foundations Document. The original version was written with a lot of input from Rob Watson. He was the primary author.

In my opinion, some of these changes are outside the scope of an of an addenda. When I was the vice-chair of the IEQ Technical Advisory Committee, the rules we played by were that some of these changes would automatically be deferred for consideration under the next version of LEED. That way the membership has the opportunity to provide comments.

Unfortunately, it looks like LEEDuser is the only place to question the changes and discuss what the changes actually mean.

I know the GBCI/USGBC do not like many of my comments here, but they need to understand that many long time LEED practitioners are asking for some control to be put back into the system.

We agree that USGBC has clearly blurred the definition/implementation with regard to Agenda and Updates. Be that as it may, USGBC, since LEED 2009, has been incapable of simple, effective messaging. By design, or otherwise, they communicate in ways where they can justify any decision or action. IMO, USGBC was ill-prepared for the rigors of LEED 2009 and needs to reconsider many of their policies and publications – prior to LEED v4. As such, the processes, almost in their entirety, appear haphazard and lacking of competent, professional oversight.

Larry, we can only keep pointing the issues regarding LEED out on this forum.

I know from direct conversations with upper management at the USGBC/GBCI that process seems to operate on its own. This is very odd. Someone certainly has overall responsibility, and it is not the GBCI part of the process.

The people writing the rules seem to people actively working on LEED projects. While at the same time, having never documented a LEED credit themselves. That is my observation. This might explain "operates on it own." Multiple groups writing requirements. A separate group putting it all together without vetting the work.

Why this would exists I cannot figure out. Why is isn't corrected I cannot figure out.

I'd like to make a few points of clarification about the July 2012 Addenda, specifically regarding the issue of what constitutes Addenda. According "Appendix 3: Changes" in the current Foundations of LEED (page 25 in particular & found at http://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=6103):

"Addenda are changes to LEED that include both substantive and non-substantive changes. A request for addenda may come from USGBC staff, the Green Building Certification Institute (GBCI) or LEED committees and may be applied to the current version of LEED on a regular basis without following LEED balloting procedures. LEED projects are required to use current addenda available at time of registration.

Substantive Changes to LEED content include corrections, interpretations and alternative compliance paths that may substantively change the way a given requirement is achieved or meant to be achieved. All proposed substantive changes must be brought to the appropriate LEED committee for review and recommendation. Substantive changes will go into effect immediately, but will be subject to comment and ballot in the next available LEED ballot.

1. Corrections fix unintentional inaccuracies, errors and/or omissions in content.

2. LEED Interpretations define or expand upon existing content to provide clarity where a misunderstanding of language has occurred.

3. Alternative Compliance Paths (ACPs) provide additional options to content that address unique project needs and advancements in science and technology."

The July Addenda released fit the definition of ACPs and followed the process outlined above. These are considered substantive changes, but ACPs do not change what a project must do. Rather, they provide additional options and projects may choose the path that best fits their needs. This means that a project can go about pursuing certification without using any of the new language if they so wish, which is the difference between a revision requiring ballot and an ACP.

Additionally, these ACPs were brought to the LEED Steering Committee for approval after being reviewed by volunteers working on international LEED projects.

I hope this clears up how the ACPs fit into our continuous improvement to LEED.

"LEED projects are required to use current addenda available at time of registration."

The above does not seem to apply to LEED Interpretations and updates to MPRs. Also, "recent" trends in energy efficiency. In the more than 13 years I have worked on LEED projects the rule was always been the rules in effect on the date of project registration. That has not been the case in the last year or so.

I concur with Bill.

Substantive changes were not changes like the new regional materials "radii equation" changes, or "applicable" versus "regularly occupied" spaces for daylighting and views.

For daylighting, the reason only regularly occupied spaces were addressed is that for LEED v2.0 a 25 footcandle limit had been set. The LEED IEQ Technical Advisory Group (TAG), I was vice-chair of, operated on rules from the steering committee that changes to a requirement, like 25 footcandles, would be deferred to the next version of LEED and a USGBC membership vote: a change greater than substantive.

The IEQ TAG, in team discussion, knew, well enough, that there were other space types that should be daylit in a building, such as atria. Daylighting values for these other types of spaces would not be the same as that for regularly occupied spaces. The minimum would be lower and maximum higher.

For of the people, those I have personally known, who have been on the LEED Steering Committee have never actually worked on a LEED project where they actually have to produce and defend the documentation during a review. The Steering Committee should have bounced many of these major changes, but they didn't seem to understand the impacts of what they were approving.

Thank you for your thoughts Bill. The major difference between the EAc1 2-point mandate and the recently released MRc5 ACP is that, once approved by USGBC membership, the 2-point mandate was required by all LEED projects registering after the date of implementation. The MRc5 ACP is not required by any projects and provides a much more accurate way to acknowledge the difference in the environmental impacts resulting from different transportation methods.

Therefore, the ACP would fit the definition of LEED Addenda under the "provide alternative language to aid in the implementation of LEED" section you reference above in "Implementation & Maintenance of Current Version".

Unfortunately I cannot speak to the SSc8 Addenda change as I oversee our international technical development but I will see if I can get someone at USGBC who can to reply.